About your Search

20110701
20110731
STATION
CSPAN 4
MSNBC 3
CSPAN2 2
MSNBCW 1
LANGUAGE
English 14
Search Results 0 to 13 of about 14 (some duplicates have been removed)
rough. the coalition troops and the taliban moved on foot. the coalition also has helicopters that can get them between mountain tops. they would be back to walking around on foot. these are law that useful. -- a lot less useful. they are used for blowing up vehicles. in some places, you see more small arms. this sort of looks like a world war ii street battle on a smaller scale. guys running around with rifles and tossing grenades, things like that. on the coalition side, there is a significant air power aspect of it as well. the tactical security threats to nato troops. >> this is located in the far most peace which is a ride along the border. this is a critical area for cross border infiltration as well as a historic avenue and the movement of supplies. >> in terms of the risk to u.s. troops, how would you characterize this? >> i would characterize this as high as venture. there is a significant influx of insurgent fighters to the area. >> we are prepared to go on a mission, tell me about that and what it is for. >> this is a standard reconnaissance mission. we're going in there to
qaeda in the strength that al qaeda existed several years ago. i's probably not the taliban. it's the history. the flow of the country. having dinner with a young marine corps captain, they said if they removed every weapon from the taliban and cleansed every village of a weapon, they would throw rocks at us. they don't want us there. it's time to come home. >> john heilman, you are chasing them across america in this decade long war in afghanistan. are they talking about it? do they care about it? are they focused on it? do they talk? >> more of the latter than the former. people generally talk about it in the aspect of being asked about it. it's not on the top five list of voters. >> any presidential candidates? >> you have to have a position on it. what's interesting is because the public turned decisively against the wars. >> what does michele bachmann say? she's a tea party candidate. what does she say ability the war? >> she's been relatively silent on the issue. it's been among the main street candidates. mitt romney -- >> huntsman. >> huntsman and romney taking a positio
.s. troops open next year. panetta also said he hopes the taliban will be on the run. it is key they keep up the pressure now. >>> and panetta also said the leaders such as al-qaida chief al-zawahri is, to limit their ability . also he believes that al-zawahri may be over the border in pakistan's northwestern federally administered tribal area. the defense secretary will have to deal with tense relations with pakistan following the killing of osama bin laden there. he said there was efforts to help them in the hunt for al-qaida members. but he said they have helped in the past track some of them down. back to you. >> david, in kabul. >> political sacrifices are needed on both sides of the aisle to solve the budget critesis. will democrats and republicans move past the rhetoric when they sit down in the white house tomorrow. >> hi, to you john. goal to whack four trillion off of the deficit over 10 years. president obama emphasized the positive. >>ed -- the good news is, we agree on the big thingings. after racking up deficit debts we need to get our fiscal house in order. both sides are goin
the taliban to peace talk in the period when the u.s. forces draw down. it is key to keep pressure up now to give the country a chance of some reconciliation. speaking in capped har, the new defense chief said the focus of the trip is the handover of security to afghan forces. he acknowledged that the remain, "a lot more work to do in terms of being able to transition the responsibility to them." now that leon panetta has moved to iraq, his focus will be on the situation there and concerns as he said here about iranian weapons smuggling. after all, 15 u.s. troops were killed there last month. back to you. >> shannon: all right, david. thank you very much. crews in india are scrambling through wreckage at this hour, desperately searching for survivors of a deadly train crash. more than 100 people were hurt and at least 31 killed when this express train derailed near the city of luknow. the death toll has been rising all morning long. the train was heading to new delhi from calcutta when officials say 12 cars skidded off the tracks. ♪ ♪ >> shannon: much of the debate over reigning in th
is a real signal from the taliban and network they can go to a target right in the heart of the capital. if the karzai forces we've been training up can't defend -- they responded well in the emergency, we're told, but if they can't respond in kabul, isn't that a signal it's going to be a long haul, and maybe there is no legacy end of the tunnel? >> i think the reset of our afghan policy last week by the president was correct. i think it was long in coming. i was never a fan of the surge or the counterinsurgency doctrine. karzai is not a willing partner. last week this mumbai style shooting attack, it could have been worse. i would give the afghans a little credit, but it was staged by the hakani gnat wornetwork, protected group, protected by the pakistani government. that group comes over the border regularly, kills our troops and obviously now is prepared to shoot at big targets in afghanistan. it's a bad signal about how ready the pakistanis are to confront terror networks in their own country. >> jane harman from the woodrow wilson center, thank you very much. >>> and up next here,
of the last year, the taking away of important safe haivens inside afghanistan from the taliban. there's clearly tough work and fighting that lies ahead. i repeatedly said while the progress is significant, for example, it remains fragile and reversible. >>> general david patreaus spending his eighth fourth of july and his last as commander of allied forces in afghanistan visiting the troops in the southern part of that country yesterday. welcome back to morning joe, pat buchanan and gerald ford with us. best-selling author and wes moore, good to have you on the show this morning. patreaus will start the new job as director of the cia in september. he talks about the hard work ahead. the changes in the troops. any gut feeling about how that will transpire? >> one transition we'll see is as we're leaving the 10,000 and the 20,000, how that's going to change in terms of troop alignment and geoloe geography. we'll see a shift towards the east to the pakistan border. that's where i spent my time. we're starting to see a lot of the flow from fighters coming from pakistan. >> let me ask you,
salary cuts. host: let's take a look at some other stories. u.s. cash said to be reaching the taliban, yearlong military that investigation concluded u.s. taxpayer money has been indirectly funneled to the taliban under 2.1 $6 billion transportation contacted the u.s. has funded in part to promote afghan business. another piece in international news, the u.s. has invited a north korean official to new york for talks. the vice foreign minister will visit for a rare meeting that could pave the way for resumption of multinational denuclearization talks secretary of state clinton said on sunday. and politics, congressman wu faces calls to step down print reports the democratic u.s. representative and the portland, oregon area, calls for his resignation from some in his own party after the state's largest newspaper published reports this week in of an alleged unwanted advances in november by a mr.wu for the young, california woman, the daughter of a longtime supporter. one last jury in politics from the washington times politics section, dnc targeting hispanic votes with 8 spanishad. both
back here. we went to afghanistan to get the taliban out, get al qaeda out and to get osama bin laden. we got osama bin laden. al qaeda is no longer in afghanistan. and the taliban is gone. so what are we still doing there? why are we still there? why are we still spending about $14 billion a month in afghanistan? so, mr. president, again, we need a balanced approach. spending cuts alone won't do the job. i think the kweupbdz have -- i think the republicans have just proved this. republicans have proved that spending cuts alone will not get the job done. how do i say that? look at the republican budget, the so-called ryan budget. it dismandate also medicare, guts medicaid, makes severe cuts across the federal budget. yet it still adds trillions of dollars to the federal deficit for years to come largely because it refuses to touch tax breaks for the well-to-do or to raise other revenues from corporations. well, mr. president, the republicans have said they don't want to raise taxes on so-called job creators. they don't want to raise taxes on job creators. well, to call trust fund mill
the taliban a tactical defeat in the south, as significant as what we have done in 2001 when we first went into the country and very, very dramatic and the challenge we have is this president's decision to scale the forces down so significantly, by september of next year, puts that -- those gains at risk, and, also, puts at risk what we are trying to do in the east, next year between kabul and the pakistani border. >> jamie: sounds like the way you are describing it, we are on track. >> we're on track but i'm concerned, the forces coming up so quickly will put the mission at risk and remains to be seen whether we can accomplish the mission, and i don't like saying it but that is the truth. >> jamie: what about leadership? i have read reports and you can certainly tell me, whether it's is true or not, that hamid karzai is really not in control. we have seen a family member of his and also some people in the administration, there, be assassinated. >> look, karzai is what he is. i mean, there's a central government in afghanistan but it is a power broker, patron agent system, he shares power
to bargain with the taliban over whether girls should be allowed to attend school." that's a pretty stark comparison, i admit, and i may not have gone that far, but frankly our republican brethren seem to hold to their ideology almost religiously. they see all things in black and white. they act as though they believe that those who disagree with that ideology are either unpatriotic or heretics and that the only truth is their truth. what they have forgotten is that negotiating with those with whom we disagree and reaching a compromise is what good governance is all about. the other falsehood here is spending is not a democratic value, as our friends on the other side would have us believe. it is a republican reality. it was the reckless spending of republicans combined with a reckless tax policy and an ideology that let wall street run wild, turning a free market into a free-for-all market that brought us to where we are today. let's remember it wasn't long ago that the budget was, in fact, balanced during another democratic administration, when we had budget surpluses as far as the eye
of every six department of defense dollars is going to afghanistan. we got the taliban out of power. karzai stood for free elections in 2004. al qaeda was dismantled and sent into western pakistan. this is not a nation-building exercise. this is a counter-terror exercise. we do not need 100,000 troops on the ground of the cost we're paying today in order to get the job done. [applause] thank you. i am here to tell you the future of the united states is not going to be determined in the prairies of afghanistan. the future of the united states is going to be determined by how well-prepared we are to compete in a highly competitive 21st century. that battle will be waged across the pacific ocean. we have some work to do. as you walk out of this building, i want you to remember why we're in this race. it is because it is about the generation and we're about to pass the country to and the condition in which they will find it. my priorities will be debt and spending. we have no choice. trajectory we're on is unsustainable. launching a new industrial revolution is within our grasp. it has happened
to the taliban we were going to withdraw. while they may not have watches, they do have calendars. [laughter] you drive them away if they know they only have to hideout for a certain time. i think of -- i think that was a mistake on his part. i think he should have made sure that the public elections were held in such a way that there was public confidence. i think there are lessons learned. one is, we have been there 10 years. id is time for the afghan people to be able to take responsibility -- it is time for the afghan people to take responsibility for there own safety that has been fought for so valiantly by our soldiers. we do want to see the afghans pick up the responsibility for the effort that goes for word. in the determination of when to pull our troops out should come as a result of the input of the people closest to the battlefield, the generals and the leaders on the ground. at the president should be listening more to them as david cameron in the u.k. did. >> i know you do not agree with the method we got into all there. now that we are there, do we need to stay in libya until colon
Search Results 0 to 13 of about 14 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)